Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4520437
label
Central Intelligence Agency
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520437
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Central Intelligence Agency
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Central Intelligence Agency. (12/04/1981 - )
Claims involving the Federal Government
Independent regulatory commissions
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520437
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-01-01
month
1
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
340e2f272db9461f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Central Intelligence Agency" of the
Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 2 of the Philip Buchen Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
FOR: DAVID BELIN
FROM: PWB
Attached are sent to
you for prompt handling,
75 we discussed on
the tolephone.
capies with this of send note originals ADB to FORD
We should mabel Хелор
at 710 Jackson Plac ERAL
20
by messenger.
C/A
January 1975
Dear mr President Hoid,
I have been trying for two years to inform someone
in regard to C.I.A. involvement on persons. As I have
personally been a victim as well as my husband. A victim
of a false report made by an agent.
It is to long and involved to put down here. I was told
by one informant that Richard Helms and Vervon Walters
know of this incident.
I have written to the White House as well as some
Sentors in the past about this, without any satisfing
responds. Ihope now that in light of today proplem
someone is ready to listen
Most sincerely,
Jeanne M.Rolusta
FORD i LIBRARY 07V839
Mr Buchen,
l hope you well take a minute and
have the President read this. at is brief,
but the information l was subject to is to
involved to put down at this moment
But & strongly biline the independence
and roots of our Country are in danger if
many of these wrong doing for personal sansfaction
are let to continue.
It is a panful growing process we
are in night new. But I believe men of honor,
truth and dedication are ile ones who can
lead us to survive and continue to grow,
Jeanne Gratefully M. Roberts
P.S. l shall in about one with send to
several Senstors a copy of this letter - as
well as to a couple of foundicks if it be
the only way to bring into the open
John
Tuesday 1/14/75
1:55 David Belin suggested you look at 5 App. USCA,
Sec. 4(b)(1).
He will call you on it -- would like to discuss.
FORDO LIBRARY
(see attached xerox)
,M
07V839
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
of Title 3, The President], and as Presi-
gress required by section 6(c) of the act;
dent of the United States, it is hereby
and
ordered as follows:
(3) prescribe administrative guidellnes
APPENDIX I
Section 1. The heads of all executive
and management controls for advisory
departments and agencies shall take ap-
committees composed wholly of full-time
propriate action to assure their ability to
officers or employees of the Federal Gov-
comply with the provisions of the net.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
ernment (inter-agency committees not
See. 2. The Director of the Office of
subject to the provisions of the act), as
Management and Budget shall:
well as for advisory committees covered
(1) perform, or designate, from time to
Pub.L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 770.
by the act.
time, other officers of the Federal Gov-
Sec. 3. Section 8(4) of Executive Order
Sec.
Sec.
ernment to perform, without the approv-
No. 11671 of June 5, 1972, is hereby re-
1. Short title.
9. Establishment and purpose of ad-
al, ratification, or other action of the
voked and the remainder of that order
2. Findings and purpose.
visory committees; publication in
President, the functions vested in the
shall be deemed to be superseded effec-
3. Definitions.
Federal Register; charter: filing,
President by the act, except the function
tive as of the expiration of ninety days
4. Applicability; restrictions.
contents, copy.
of making the annual reports to the Con-
following the date of my approval of the
5. Responsibilities of Congressional
10. Advisory committee procedures;
gress required by section 6(c) of the act;
act.
committees; review; guidelines.
meetings; notice, publication in
(2) prepare for the consideration of the
RICHARD NIXON
6. Responsibilities of the President; re-
Federal Register; regulations;
President the annual reports to the Con-
port to Congress: annual report to
minutes: certification; annual re-
LIBRARY
Congress; exclusion.
port; Federal officer or employee,
§ 3. Definitions.
7. Responsibilities of the Director, Of-
attendance.
fice of Management and Budget;
11.
Availability of transcripts; "agency
For the purpose of this Act-
Committee Management Secretariat,
proceeding".
establishment; review; recom-
12.
Fiscal and administrative provisions;
(1) The term "Director" means the Director of the Office of Man-
mendations to President and Con-
recordkeeping; audit; agency sup-
agement and Budget.
gress; agency cooperation; per-
port services.
formance guidelines; uniform pay
13.
Responsibilities of Library of Con-
(2) The term "advisory committee" means any committee,
guidelines; travel expenses; ex-
gress; reports and background
commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar
pense recommendations.
papers; depository.
8. Responsibilities of agency heads;
14.
Termination of advisory committees;
group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof (hereafter in
Advisory Committee Management
renewal; continuation.
this paragraph referred to as "committee"), which is-
Control Officer, designation.
15. Effective date.
(A) established by statute or reorganization plan, or
§ 1. Short title
(B) established or utilized by the President, or
This Act may be cited as the "Federal Advisory Committee Act".
(C) established or utilized by one or more agencies,
in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the Presi-
§ 2. Findings and purpose
dent or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government,
except that such term excludes (1) the Advisory Commission on In-
(a) The Congress finds that there are numerous committees, boards,
tergovernmental Relations, (ii) the Commission on Government Pro-
commissions, councils, and similar groups which have been established to
advise officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Gov-
curement, and (iii) any committee which is composed wholly of full-
time officers or employees of the Federal Government.
ernment and that they are frequently a useful and beneficial means of
(3) The term "agency" has the same meaning as in section 551
furnishing expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the Federal Gov-
(1) of Title 5.
ernment.
(4) The term "Presidential advisory committee" means an ad-
(b) The Congress further finds and declares that-
visory committee which advises the President.
(1) the need for many existing advisory committees has not been
adequately reviewed;
§ 4. Applicability; restrictions
(2) new advisory committees should be established only when
(a) The provisions of this Act or of any rule, order, or regulation
they are determined to be essential and their number should be kept
promulgated under this Act shall apply to each advisory committee except
to the minimum necessary;
to the extent that any Act of Congress establishing any such advisory
(3) advisory committees should be terminated when they are no
committee specifically provides otherwise.
longer carrying out the purposes for which they were established;
(4) standards and uniform procedures should govern the estab-
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to any advisory
lishment, operation, administration, and duration of advisory com-
committee established or utilized by-
mittees;
(1) the Central Intelligence Agency; or
(2) the Federal Reserve System.
(5) the Congress and the public should be kept informed with re-
spect to the number, purpose, membership, activities, and cost of ad-
(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to any local civic
group whose primary function is that of rendering a public service with
vlsory committees; and
respect to a Federal program, or any State or local committee, council,
(6) the function of advisory committees should be advisory only,
board, commission, or similar group established to advise or make recom-
and that all matters under their consideration should be determined,
mendations to State or local officials or agencies.
in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11686
§ 5. Responsibilities of Congressional committees; review; guide-
lines
Oct. 7, 1972, 37 F.R. 21421
COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT
(a) In the exercise of its legislative review function, each standing
I have approved the Federal Advisory Appendix] in effect, supersede and re-
committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall make a
Committee Act [set out in this Appendix]
place the committee management stand-
continuing review of the activities of each advisory committee under its
which provides standards for the estab-
ards and procedures set forth in Execu-
11471
which
T
issued
on
jurisdiction to determine whether such advisory committee should be
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JANE DANNENHAUER
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN T.W.B.
Kindly arrange to obtain the necessary
additional security clearances for
Kenneth Lazarus so that he may review
classified materials of the CIA and other
agencies or departments engaged in foreign
intelligence operations. It is necessary
that Mr. Lazarus as a member of my staff
assist me in the review of certain such
materials from time to time.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Feb. 13, 1975
To:
Mr. Areeda
From: Eva
Mr. Buchen asked me
to give this to you.
FORD i LIBRARY GRAALD
COMMISSION ON CIA ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
Washington, DC 20500
Nelson A. Rockefeller,
David W. Belin,
Chairman
Executive Director
John T. Connor
C. Douglas Dillon
Erwin N. Griswold
February 11, 1975
Lane Kirkland
Lyman L. Lemnitzer
Ronald Reagan
Edgar F. Shannon, Jr.
TO:
Philip Buchen
FROM:
David W. Belin
SUBJECT: William Miller and Jack Boos Meeting -
February 11, 1975
On February 11, 1975, Joseph O'Leary, our legisla-
tive liaison, and I met William Miller for lunch.
Miller is the Chief-of-Staff for the Senator Church
Committee. According to Miller, within two weeks
his staff will be in "3/4" gear. He plans to have
a total staff of around 40 of whom 10-12 will be
lawyers. The initial work will concentrate on re-
view of documents, interviews, and what Miller called
"depositions". He said he does not plan to have any
hearings for several months. He also said he did not
think the September deadline could be met and instead
thought the investigation would take at least the
rest of this year.
The thrust of his investigation will include the
whole range of intelligence gathering agencies and
will go into basic matters of policy including whe-
ther or not there is a need for all of the agencies,
how much the cost is, what the results are, related
public policy matters, rights of privacy, questions
pertaining to the propriety of operations, etc.
He said the Committee would operate out of a room
that he referred to as the "auditorium" which he
thought gave the best security. He said there
would be rigid standards imposed to try to seal
off any leaks. These standards would include hav-
ing everything in a central filing area with a check
out system permitted to particular people so that REFORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
2.
leaks occurred the source of the leaks could be
readily ascertained. Xeroxing would be severely
limited.
The meeting with Jack Boos, who works with Congress-
man Nedzi, was relatively short. Boos (pronounced
Bows) said that it would be a month before the House
Committee got organized. He was not certain that
Nedzi would be the Chairman. William Miller was
present during part of the meeting. When I ques-
tioned about possible leaks, the analogy of the
Joint Atomic Energy Committee was given as an ex-
ample of a "leak proof" committee. When I asked
why the intelligence investigation was not being
done by a Joint Senate/House Committee, the re-
joinder was that it was too difficult to arrange
because of matters of protocol, etc.
I did not enter into any specific discussion with
either Miller or Boos involving any exchange of
information.
CC: Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak
Thursday. pril 17, 1975
Protecting the CIA
THE WASHINGTON POST
Tucked into President Ford's speech
to Congress, and ignored in the emo-
tional controversy over Vietnam, was
a carefully worded warning that secret
operations of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) must be protected from
"altered" congressional oversight that
threatens "essential secrets."
Mr. Ford's purpose: repeal of an
oversight provision stuck into a new
law last December. That provision
requires the President to notify "ap
including
the
Wednesday 6/18/75
C/Apress
4:45 Dave Crock of the Washington Post called and said
223-7460
he had been talking with Mr. Clapper of the CIA
Commission, who indicated that Belin recommended
some of the testimony be released ** but didn't know
exactly to whom the recommendation had been made
at the White House.
I tried to reach Mr. Clapper but he was not in his office.
I advised Mr. Crock that I had seen nothing come in.
He wanted to know to whom it would have come if a
recommendation of that nature came from Belin.
I told him I didn't know if it would have come to the
President or to whom, but perhaps he could check with
Mr. Clapper and get more information.
FORD is LIBRARY 07V830
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
12 November 1975
The Honorable Philip Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Phil:
Some weeks ago we chatted about the Civil Rights
Division investigation of some 46 CIA officers and
former employees who were involved in the warrantless
entry of a Fairfax, Virginia, photographic studio.
At that time, I expressed some concern as to whether,
as a matter of law, convictions could be obtained on
the subject. The enclosed memorandum may be of some
interest to you.
Last week a $12 million suit was filed in Federal
District Court by the couple subject to the entry.
If the Department of Justice continues its criminal
investigation, I understand that it will neither
defend the civil suit nor authorize payment of
legal fees to private counsel. Thus, if as I believe,
no criminal prosecution is feasible, it would be very
helpful to the 46 defendants in the civil suit for
a prompt decision to be made by Justice.
Sincerely,
Matchell Rogovin
Mitchell Rogovin
Special Counsel to the Director
Attachment
REVOLUTION
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
1776-1976
FORD LIBRARY
Body of Slain CIA Man Is Returned Home
GERALD
By Jeremiah O'Leary
The Washington Star Tuesday, December 30, 1975
Washington Star Staff Writer
In the half-light of a cold winter
dawn, a young Marine officer stood
at rigid salute this morning as an
honor guard marched in slow-step
down the ramp of an Air Force plane
bringing home the body of his mur-
dered father, CIA officer Richard
Welch.
C/A
Consultants
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN T.
Attached is a copy of an article entitled "The CIA and
American Foreign Policy" by Ernest W. Lefever, which
appeared in a recent issue of the "Lugano Review. "
It occurs to me that this article deserves additional circulation
and that we might want to see that copies are distributed to
people in the Congress and to appropriate media people. It
also occurs to me that Ernest Lefever may be a useful addition
to the group we have used as consultants.
cc: Max Friedersdorf
Director William Colby
Ambassador George Bush
Mike Duval
FORD is LIBRARY 9ERALD
2a
THE WHITE HOUSE
C/A.
WASHINGTON
February 3, 1976
Dear George:
As you begin your tenure as DCI, I would like to call to
your attention two individuals -- John Clarke and Marshall
Miller -- who could be of some assistance to you.
John Clarke retired from the CIA last summer as Associate
Deputy to the DCI for the Intelligence Community; he is
currently the Assistant Comptroller at Amtrak. At the Agency
John was the de facto head of the Intelligence Community Staff.
I worked closely with him during the early stages of the
Congressional investigations and have consulted with him since
then on a variety of intelligence matters. In my dealings with
John, he impressed me as a man of exceptional intelligence,
judgment, loyalty and common sense. I believe he still has
much to give to the CIA and recommend him to you without
any reservations whatsoever.
I don't know Marshall Miller personally, but he is highly regarded
by Jim Wilderotter of my staff. As you will note from his resume,
Mr. Miller was with Bill Ruckelshaus both at EPA and the
Department of Justice. He is quite interested in a position on
your staff, and Jim feels his legal background and broad govern-
ment experience would be particularly useful to you in view of
the kinds of problems the Agency will be facing in this transitional
period.
Best regards.
DECLASSIFIED
E.O. 13526 (se amended) SEC 3.3
Sincerely,
MR # 11-080;#2
CIA letter 9/21/11
By dal NARA, Date 2/3/12
Thil
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable George Bush
Director of Central Intelligence
Washington, D. C.
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
Enclosure
ab
Biography
Marshall Lee Miller
Marshall Lee Miller is Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which he joined
in June 1975.
Before taking this position, Mr. Miller was in private law
practice in Washington, D. C., during 1970-1971 and 1974-1975.
Prior to this, Mr. Miller was Associate Deputy Attorney General
to William Ruckelshaus at the Department of Justice.
From 1971 until 1973, he was at the Environmental Protection
Agency where he was Special Assistant to Mr. Ruckelshaus for
air pollution, toxic chemicals, and pesticides. He also served
as EPA's Chief Judicial Officer, acting for the Administrator on
appeals from decisions of the Administrative Law Judges.
Mr. Miller attended Harvard College, Oxford University, Heidelberg
University, and Yale Law School.
He is the author of the "Environmental Law Handbook" and "Bulgaria
in the Second World War." He also conducted a seminar at Yale
University on the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Mr. Miller was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 1942 and
currently resides in Alexandria, Virginia.
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
C/A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 9, 1976
Dear Bill:
Now that you have settled back to a time for
contemplation and writing, I want to express
my warm feelings and deep gratitude for your
superb service in a most difficult government
position during a most trying period.
I derived much satisfaction and pleasure from
working closely with you on some of the many
problems you had over the last thirteen months.
And my admiration for you is sure to be a lasting
one.
I do wish you much success and satisfaction in
your current undertaking and in whatever new
career you may decide to pursue after that.
Sincerely,
That
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable William E. Colby
5317 Briley Place
Bethesda, Maryland 20016
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Dosfiling
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
DEPARTMENT I
February 23, 1976
The Honorable Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Phil:
Thank you for your letter about John Clarke
and Marshall Miller. I have heard good things
about both of them,
Right now, I see no openings that would be
fully challenging for either of these men. I
have told our personnel people that you have
recommended them, and I will certainly keep in
mind their interest in coming to the CIA. I
don't like to be discouraging, but if there is
any urgency in either case, perhaps it would be
well to advise them that I don't foresee an
immediate change in the situation on this end.
Thanks for writing me about both Messrs.
Clarke and Miller.
Sincerely,
George ay Bush
Director
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
ORIGINAL RETIRED FOR PRESERVATION
12:40 p.m.
Friday, March 21
Listed below are the names and titles of the people
Captain Howe (VP staff) promised you.
Murphy Commission, working on:
Dr. Francis Wilcox
Executive Director,
Commission on Organization of the Government
for the Conduct of Foreign Policy
254-9850
Fisher Howe
Deputy Executive Director
254-9850
FORD i LIBRARY 07V830
7 April 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: Vice Admiral Daniel J. Murphy, USN
Deputy to the DCI for the Intelligence
Community
FROM:
Mitchell Rogovin, Special Counsel
SUBJECT:
Delivery of Documents to Congress
1. This is in reply to your 5 April memorandum for-
warding the proposed form to be used to transmit documents
to Congressional committees. Although I believe the form
meets our needs, I am concerned that the Congressional
committees may view the prohibition referred to in Para-
graph 2 of the instructions as a frontal attack on the
Committee's constitutional authority to receive infor-
mation and to inform the Congress and the public.
2. The legend to be stamped on each document, "on
loan from (Agency), not to be reproduced" (as amended
by Seymour Bolten to include "or publicly disclosed with-
out the express permission of the originating agency"),
can generate a serious problem if this legend is
indiscriminately placed on all documents.
3. Our experience regarding "loan documents" has
been that committees will respect the concept when the
document itself is not only highly classified but highly
sensitive and, they are put on prior notice that access
to the document will not be available unless such a
condition is accepted by the committee. If all the
materials sought by a Congressional committee (even if
classified) are stamped with such a limitation, I can
envision a refusal on the part of the committee to
accept the documents. The Committee can then fall back
on its subpoena power to attempt to secure the materials,
unfettered by any condition. This leaves the Executive
Branch in the unenviable position, if a subpoena is issued,
of either complying with the demand or asserting
executive privilege.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
4. It would be my judgment that the "loan document"
concept should be used sparingly and not automatically
stamped on all materials.
5. I do not believe that the Department of Justice
would be prepared to support the flat position that such
a legend (even without the Bolten amendment) stamped on
all of the documents was legally defensible. It would
be my suggestion that before the form is placed in service
that the Acting General Counsel seek the advice of the
Justice Department regarding this matter. I believe this
legal issue can better be resolved outside of the pressure
of an actual demand by a committee chairman.
Mutchell Rozousn
Mitchell Rogovin
Special Counsel to the Director
CC: Philip Buchen
Jack Marsh
Mike Duval
Antonin Scalia
Seymour Bolten
George Cary
John Morrison
FORD i LIBRARY ERALD
C/A
Friday 4/23/76
9:35 Dotty Cavanaugh said Mildred had a call from
a General who is a friend of Mildred's, as well as
the President's.
He thinks the law regarding CIA is that one of the
top two men has to be military. He is concerned about the Knoche
nomination.
The General will be calling again to ask if that is correct
so Mildred would appreciate knowing.
Top two can be civilians
but by traditions it
is usually military.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
C/A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 6, 1976
Dear George:
In response to a request from your office,
enclosed is a copy of the provision in the
regulations governing the conduct of employees
of the Executive Office of the President which
relates to the acceptance of honoraria. My
office has interpreted this provision as prohibiting
the acceptance of honoraria for writings or
appearances which in any way relate to subject
matters involving the official's agency, even
if the honorarium is to be given directly to
charity by the sponsor.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have
additional questions of this nature.
With best wishes,
That Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable George Bush
Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505
FORD s LIBRAR. GLRALD
(4) Accept unsolicited advertising or promo-
information has been made available to the gen-
tional materials such as pens, pencils, note pads,
eral public or will be made available on request,
calendars, or other items of nominal intrinsic
or when the agency head gives written authoriza-
value.
tion for the use of non-public information on the
(c) An employee shall not solicit contributions
basis that the use is in the public interest. In ad-
from another employee for a gift to an employee
dition, an employee who is a Presidential ap-
in a superior official position. An employee in a
pointee covered by section 401 (a) of Executive
superior official position shall not accept a gift
Order No. 11222 of May 8, 1965, shall not receive
presented as a contribution from employees receiv-
compensation or anything of monetary value for
ing less salary than himself. An employee shall not
any consultation, lecture, discussion, writing, or
make a donation as a gift to an employee in a
appearance the subject matter of which is devoted
superior official position (5 U.S.C. 7251). How-
substantially to the responsibilities, programs, or
ever, this paragraph does not prohibit a voluntary
operations of his agency, or which draws substan-
gift of nominal value or donation in a nominal
tially on official data or ideas which have not
amount made on a special occasion such as mar-
become part of the body of public information.
riage, illness, or retirement.
(c) An employee shall not engage in outside
(d) The Constitution (Art. 1, sec. 9, par. 8)
employment under a State or local government,
prohibits acceptance from foreign governments,
except in accordance with applicable regulations
except with the consent of Congress of any emolu-
of the Civil Service Commission (Part 334 of 5
ment, office, or title. The Congress has provided for
CFR Ch. I).
the receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and
(d) Neither this section nor § 100.735-14 pre-
decorations in 5 U.S.C. 7342. See also Executive
cludes an employee from:
Order 11320, 31 F.R. 13739, and the regulations
(1) Receipt of bona fide reimbursement unless
pursuant thereto in 22 CFR Part 3 (as added, 32
prohibited by law, for actual expenses for travel
F.R. 6569). Any such gift or thing which cannot
and such other necessary subsistence as is com-
appropriately be refused shall be submitted to the
patible with this subpart and for which no Gov-
Counselor for transmittal to the State Department.
ernment payment or reimbursement is made.
§ 100.735-15 Outside employment and other
However, an employee may not be reimbursed, and
activity.
payment may not be made on his behalf, for ex-
cessive personal living expenses, gifts, entertain-
(a) An employee shall not engage in outside
ment, or other personal benefits, nor does it allow
employment or other outside activity not com-
an employee to be reimbursed by a person for
patible with the full and proper discharge of the
travel on official business under agency orders
duties and responsibilities of his Government em-
when reimbursement is proscribed by Decision
ployment. Incompatible activities include, but are
B-128527 of the Comptroller General dated
not limited to:
March 7, 1967.
(1) Acceptance of a fee, compensation, gift.
(2) Participation in the activities of national
payment of expense, or any other thing of mone-
or State political parties not proscribed by law.
tary value in circumstances in which acceptance
(See paragraph (o) of § 100.735-22 regarding pro-
may result in, or create the apperance of, a con-
scribed political activities.)
flict of interests; or
(3) Participation in the affairs of, or accept-
(2) Outside employment which tends to impair
ance of an award for a meritorious public contri-
the employee's mental or physical capacity to per-
bution or achievement given by, a charitable,
form his Government duties and responsibilities in
religious, professional, social, fraternal, nonprofit
an acceptable manner.
educational or recreational, public service, or civic
(b) Within the limitations imposed by this sec-
organization.
tion, employees are encouraged to engage in
(e) An employee who intends to engage in out-
teaching, lecturing, and writing. However, an em-
side employment shall obtain the approval,
ployee shall not, either for or without compensa-
through his official superior, of his agency head.
tion, engage in teaching, lecturing, or writing that
A record of each approval under this paragraph
is dependent on information obtained as a result
shall be filed in the employee's official FOR personnel
of his Government employment, except when that
folder.
GERALD
LIBRARY
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Foribuling
6 May 1976
NOTE TO: The Honorable Brent Scowcroft
The Honorable William 6. Hyland
The Honorable Philip W. Buchen
The Honorable John 0. Marsh, Jr.
Mr. Michael Duval
Tony Lapham will be the new General
Counsel at CIA starting 1 June. He has
asked that this not be made public until
we complete the security procedures at
the Agency.
I am very pleased about this and
hope that you will enjoy working with
Tony.
Best regards,
Cuy
George Bush
Director
Att: Bie Sketch
FORD is LIBRARY 07V830
Anthony A. Lapham, born San Francisco. Cal-
ifornia, August 22, 1936; admitted to bar, 1962, Dis-
trict of Columbia. Preparatory education. Yale
University (B.A., 1958) ; legat education, George-
toxie TT.
C/A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: BARRY ROTH
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
CIA BUILDING
At your request, I did talk to Tony Lapham on
August 3rd about either cutting down the cost
of the proposed project or having his office
render an opinion that, because funds for the
project have already been appropriated, no
prospectus for the building is required. I
assume he will get back in touch with either
you or me on the matter. So that your file is
complete, I enclose the Ogilvie memorandum to
Jack Marsh.
Attachment
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Copy to
Schmults
THE WHITE HOUSE
Lozarus
WASHINGTON
A.ugust 31, 1976
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN/ED SCHMULTS
FROM:
JIM CONNOR
SUBJECT:
Recommended Telephone Call to
Rep. Walter Flowers
Confirming telephone call to your office, the President made the
recommended telephone call to Representative Walter Flowers today
concerning the private relief bill for the benefit of the survivors
of Dr. Frank Olson and made the following notation:
"Talked with Congressman Flowers. Sub-Committee
action September 1/ full Committee following week.
Foresees no problem."
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
cc: Dick Cheney
Max Friedersdorf
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
ITEM WITHDRAWAL SHEET
WITHDRAWAL ID 00645
Collection/Series/Folder ID No
: 001900077
Reason for Withdrawal
:
DR, Donor restriction
Type of Material
:
LET, Letter (s)
Creator's Name
: Philip Buchen
Receiver's Name
: Deputy General Counsel of the CIA
Description
:
he Rockefeller Commission
re request for testimony before t
Creation Date
: 09/30/1976
Date Withdrawn
: 05/09/1988
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL
D
SUBJECT:
Claim against the CIA
Attached is a communication I received from the law firm of
Sellers, Conner & Cuneo concerning a claim by the General
Aircraft Corporation against the CIA.
I have no idea why this was sent to me.
I'm forwarding it to you for whatever action you deem
appropriate.
Attachment
SELLERS, CONNER & CUNEO
HOMER CUMMINGS
JOHN D CONNER
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
(1870-1956)
GILBERT A. CUNEO
-
ROBERT L ACKERLY
1625 K STREET, NORTHWEST
HERBERT L. FENSTER)
ASHLEY SELLERS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
JOEL P. SHEDD
C. STANLEY DEES
OF COUNSEL
RAYMOND S.E. PUSHKAR
JAMES J GALLAGHER
(202) 452-7500
JOSEPH WAGER
CHARLES A.O CONNOR. nr
CABLE:SELCONCU
WILLIAM J. SPRIGGS
STEVEN L. BRIGGERMAN
HARVEY G. SHERZER
BUEL WHITE
WILLIAM H. BUTTERFIELD
ROBERT A. MANGRUM
THOMAS L. PATTEN
WILSIE H. ADAMS. JR.
September 30, 1976
JEFFREY P. ALTMAN
JOHN D. CONNER. JR.
LAWRENCE S. EBNER
D. MICHAEL FITZHUGH
ALLEN B. GREEN
E. SANDERSON HOE
JOE G. HOLLINGSWORTH
ALLAN W. MARKHAM
THOMAS A. MAURO
NEIL H. RUTTENBERG
CERTIFIED MAIL
D. JOE SMITH. JR.
KENNETH W. WEINSTEIN
RETURN RECEIPT
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D. C. 20505
Dear Mr. Bush:
This firm represents General Aircraft Corporation, successor
in name to Helio Aircraft Corporation. General Aircraft Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "GAC" or "Helio," is a manufacturer of
light C/STOL aircraft, including models known as "Courier," "Stallion"
and "U-5." This letter will constitute a claim made by and on behalf
of General Aircraft Corporation against the United States and the
Central Intelligence Agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1365 and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, for a taking of
private property for public use without just compensation.
This letter will also constitute a claim made by and on
behalf of GAC against: (1) corporations under the control of the
Central Intelligence Agency and known as "proprietaries" of the
Central Intelligence Agency, including Pacific Corporation, Civil
Air Transport, Air America, Seven Seas Airlines, and Air Asia; and
(2) individual employees of the Central Intelligence Agency and the
proprietaries in their individual capacities and as officers, direc-
tors or principal employees of the proprietaries under applicable
anti-trust laws, including Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. 1, 2 and under statutory and common law precedents covering
tortious interference with business relations and unfair trade prac-
tices.
Further, this letter will also constitute notice to FORD of
the intention of GAC to investigate and, as appropriate, act on con-
flicts of interest and malpractice by professional organizations JBRARY who
RECLASSISHED
AUTHORITY RAC nLF- PB-1-2-1-6 9/21/05
BY
Wn
NLF, DATE 6/29/09
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Two
have and are determined to have represented the Central Intelligence
Agency and its proprietaries (including their employees) while, with-
out appropriate notice, also undertaking to represent GAC, its sub-
sidiaries and related companies and its employees.
Claim is made in the amount of $25 million against the
parties identified above, jointly and individually, for the causes
of action which have also been identified. This amount represents
damages suffered by GAC. This does not, however, represent treble
damages which may be assessed against the proprietaries. GAC further
demands that the United States and its appropriate departments and
agencies take all actions necessary in the United States and overseas
to correct the actions and representations of all of those against
whom this claim is made, which actions and representations compromised
GAC's reputation and access to customers and markets and gave rise to
the claim herein. We request prompt review, negotiation and settle-
ment of this claim, since certain of the causes of action alleged are
continuing and without settlement will continue to damage GAC.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. GAC Organization,
Operation and Markets
GAC was founded as Helio Corporation in 1949. In 1950 Mid-
west Aircraft Corporation acquired Helio by an exchange of stock and
changed its name, adopting the Helio Aircraft Corporation name. Sub-
sequently, an aircraft manufacturing facility was established by the
company in Pittsburgh, Kansas. In 1969 Helio acquired the assets of
General Aircraft Corporation and adopted that corporation's name.
The principal product of the company since its organization
has been control short takeoff and landing (C/STOL) aircraft. The
development and manufacture of such an aircraft incorporating very
advanced and proprietary technologies was the purpose of the organ-
ization of the company in 1949.
Such an aircraft was developed with considerable success by
the company in the 1950's and sold in substantial numbers in the 1950's
and 1960's in the general aviation market and both to the United
States and foreign governments. This aircraft was known as the Helio
FORD is LIBRARY 9ERVID
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Three
Courier (U-10). Starting in the 1950's and continuing into the early
1960's, sales of the Helio Courier were made from time to time both
directly and indirectly to the Central Intelligence Agency. To the
company's information and belief, such aircraft were used by the
Central Intelligence Agency in support of covert operations conducted
in areas where communications and transportation by normal means,
including small aircraft with normal takeoff and landing constraints,
would have been impossible.
During the same period, personnel of the company undertook
the development of comprehensive communications systems for use in
primitive, remote and underdeveloped areas of the world. One such
system was known as the Jungle Aviation and Radio Service (JAARS).
A second system was developed and marketed through a company organ-
ized by personnel of Helio and known as National Air Communications
Systems, Inc. (Naircom). In the late 1950's and early 1960's the
Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the Agency for International
Development of the State Department, had participated significantly
with Helio and its personnel in the development of these communica-
tions systems, particularly in Latin America. Such systems were
deployed successfully in Peru, Ecuador, Columbia and Panama. While
it now appears that these systems and various features of them were
used by the Central Intelligence Agency to carry on covert operations,
the propriety of which is questioned, neither Helio nor its personnel
were ever party to such operations, nor did they knowingly participate
in such operations.
During this period (the mid-1950's through the early 1960's)
Helio had developed substantial and profitable markets for its
Courier aircraft, both in domestic general aviation and with the
United States and foreign governments. In addition to sales to the
Central Intelligence Agency, sales were also made to the Air Force.
Furthermore, substantial and potentially lucrative overseas markets
were being developed. In particular, these markets were in emerging
"third world" countries where the distinctive C/STOL and safe handl-
ing features of the Helio Courier were of paramount importance and
provided Helio with a considerable competitive advantage over other
available aircraft. Markets for the aircraft thus were developed in
Africa south of the Sahara, in the Pacific, including Micronesia, on
the Indochina Peninsula and in Latin America.
These markets paralleled the potential and developing mar-
kets for the comprehensive air transport and communications systems
which were being developed by Helio and its personnel.
FORD is LIBRARY CERALD
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Four
Restrictions on air field use in the United States appeared
to limit commercial application of Helio's aircraft products and tech-
nology. As a result, very substantial stress during the 1950's and
1960's was placed on overseas sales, particularly to underdeveloped
nations and on military sales to the Department of Defense. By the
early 1960's it had become apparent that a new generation of C/STOL
aircraft, combining greater payload and increased engine power (in-
cluding the use of turboprop engines), would be required. In response
to this developing need, Helio undertook a program which led to the
development and production of a new advanced C/STOL aircraft which
became known as the "Stallion." This aircraft was developed at very
substantial expense to Helio upon the determination that its estab-
lished world markets, as well as its potential sales to United States
Government agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, would
return the investment with profit.
In the early 1960's, Helio and its personnel devoted to
comprehensive communications systems undertook intensive sales efforts
in Africa and the Far East. These markets for Helio were real and
viable, since the Helio products, including both the aircraft and
communications systems, were unique and served significant needs in
remote areas of underdeveloped countries. Moreover, Helio had estab-
lished access to foreign government agencies and private investors
who would have an interest in the purchase of Helio products. Thus,
in the years 1960 through 1962, Helio undertook an intensive effort
to sell its systems and aircraft in East Africa and the Congo. Nego-
tiations between the company and African Government representatives
were advanced to the point where substantial sales seemed assured.
Negotiations regarding these sales were then suddenly cut off and
Helio personnel were at the same time declared persona non grata
and the opportunities were irrevocably lost. In 1961 Helio under-
took an intensive sales effort in the Philippines. This effort was
implemented through Naircom. The effort seemingly received the sup-
port of the United States Embassy in Manila and the attached AID
personnel. Again, this effort advanced to the point where the adop-
tion of Helio's proposal was favorably recommended within the Philip-
pine Government. However, the Helio proposal was once more suddenly
rejected without explanation and the Helio representatives were warned
by United States Government representatives not to continue negotia-
tions or reenter the country.
A similar pattern of facts, in each case resulting in Helio's
personnel being excluded from the country, was repeated in Thailand,
Vietnam, Laos, Nepal, Cambodia and Micronesia. Ultimately, Helio,
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Five
its personnel, representatives and employed outside sales representa-
tives were systematically excluded from all potential markets in
underdeveloped and developing nations around the world.
With the development of its "Stallion" aircraft, Helio sought
to enter into the defense market, in which it had successfully engaged
with its earlier "Courier" aircraft. Proposals in this connection
were made from time to time, both to the Air Force and the Navy, but
in each case the company was excluded or virtually excluded from the
market, usually without adequate evaluation of its product but upon
representations by Department of Defense personnel that they had re-
ceived and reviewed evaluation information on the Helio products from
other sources.
The exclusion from its logical and historical markets has re-
quired Helio to contract very substantially its operations in toto and
to discontinue its aircraft manufacturing operations entirely. Such
exclusion has, in sum, nearly destroyed the company's aircraft oper-
ations.
As is normal for companies manufacturing aircraft, Helio did
carry on for many years a significant aircraft parts manufacturing
function in support of its aircraft in the field. Again, in the 1960's
this operation diminished significantly and inexplicably. Further-
more, Helio received many complaints concerning the quality and reli-
ability of its parts equipments which could not be substantiated by
quality assurance testing and reliability controls. This combina-
tion of circumstances, together with the disintegration of its markets
for new aircraft, has resulted in a complete closing of all of Helio's
aircraft operations.
B. Interference by the Central
Intelligence Agency, Its
Proprietaries and Personnel
in Helio Overseas Business
Activities
As has been alleged above, in the 1960's Helio was systemat-
ically excluded from all of its foreign markets. While a conscientious
effort was. made by Helio to determine the reasons for the failures of
such markets, such a determination could never be adequately made.
The recent investigations of CIA activities and those of CIA proprie-
taries now discloses that Helio's exclusion from these world markets
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Six
resulted directly and intentionally from the activities of the CIA,
its proprietaries and personnel. It is now apparent that this exclu-
sion resulted from a combination of the use of Helio's name and
products by the CIA and its proprietaries with the conduct by the
CIA in that connection of illegal, immoral and frequently violent
actions against the foreign governments, their officials and citi-
zens.
In the late 1950's and early 1960's, Helio had, in addition
to selling aircraft to the CIA, provided, from time to time, irregular
assistance to CIA personnel, transporting them to various locations
when doing so did not inconvenience Helio's marketing and maintenance
operations. Such assistance was in no case provided covertly, nor
were Helio personnel ever engaged in or aware of covert operations
of the CIA, its proprietaries or personnel.
In 1961 Helio had virtually completed a substantial sale to
the Congo Government through negotiations, many of which were carried
on directly with the Congo's then Government leader, Moise Tshombe.
During this sales activity, Helio personnel had from time to time
provided transportation to CIA representatives who apparently were
attached to consular offices. In such instances, the transportation
was provided to CIA personnel as "strangers" and no connection between
the CIA personnel and the company was ever established by Helio.
Nevertheless, it now appears that agents of the CIA obtained
by forgery, misrepresentation, and other devices, credentials indicat-
ing that they were sales employees of Helio, knowing well that such
was not the case. These agents of the CIA used the "cover" of such
misrepresentations to establish competing selling activities. More
importantly, however, such "cover" was used by these agents to carry
on illegal and immoral activities which ultimately resulted in the
death of Government officials in the Congo and the fall of the exist-
ing Government. These activities, conducted in the name of Helio,
came to the attention of the Congo Government and its officials
through their own intelligence and immediately resulted in the exclu-
sion of Helio and its legitimate employees from any further operations.
Similar activities were conducted by the CIA, its proprietar-
ies and personnel, under cover of the company's name in Thailand, and
in other countries on the Indochina Peninsula. There, agents employed
directly by the CIA or its proprietaries, representing themselves as
Helio employees, carried on activities frequently using Helio aircraft,
a
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARA
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Seven
which involved the smuggling of illegal drugs, the murder of indige-
nous people and clandestine operations against existing governments
or gorilla movements. Such activities, when identified by the rele-
vant governments, resulted in the immediate and permanent exclusion
of Helio's legitimate personnel from those countries.
In 1962 Helio was approached by a representative of a pro-
prietary of the CIA who instructed Helio to turn over to the proprie-
tary its worldwide selling operations. Helio refused and the subject
was not thereafter raised by the Agency or its proprietary. In fact,
Helio was assured that the proprietary lacked the authority to conduct
such activities in Helio's name or in its own name. Nevertheless, it
now appears that the CIA and its proprietaries, at that time and
thereafter, undertook both to carry on activities in Helio's name
and without Helio's knowledge, in all cases suppressing such facts
and otherwise misrepresenting to Helio that such conduct was not
taking place, and furthermore to compete with Helio by undertaking
to market, through fraudulent and illegal means, competing products,
identifying such marketing with the Government of the United States.
It appears, moreover, that such activities were carried on both to
advance the clandestine operations of the CIA and to provide means
independent of the United States Government for financing such opera-
tions and to garner a profit for the individuals involved.
The aforesaid operations of the CIA, its proprietaries and
their employees and agents included fraudulent traffic in the main-
tenance of Helio aircraft owned and operated b.y the CIA and its pro-
prietaries, the illegal manufacture and sale of equipments bearing
the Helio name, and the marketing of competing products by CIA pro-
prietaries, using as agents for such marketing uniformed officers
of the United States Armed Services. Such activities by the CIA and
its proprietaries actually included the establishment of an operation
which illegally manufactured and marketed parts for Helio aircraft
of inferior quality. Such activities also included the clandestine
but worldwide marketing of competing aircraft, using as selling agents
therefor personnel of the United States Air Force and a concerted
campaign carried on with foreign governments and the United States
Department of Defense to malign, misrepresent, and otherwise denigrate
the worth and quality of Helio products. Upon information and belief,
it was the purpose of such activities by the CIA and its proprietaries
both to provide means for clandestine operations by CIA agents and to
provide independent sources of revenue for CIA operations and for the
individuals connected with those operations, without the necessity
for recourse to the United States Government. Such activities,
-
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Eight
undertaken as early as the early 1960's, were carried on clandestinely
by the CIA, its proprietaries and personnel and at all times the CIA,
its proprietaries and personnel denied to Helio the existence of such
operations.
C. Use of Central Intelligence
Agency Personnel and Agents
to Cover Alleged Illegal
Operations
In the late 1950's, when Helio began sales to the CIA of
"Courier" aircraft, the CIA then insisted that Helio employ counsel
cleared by the Agency to know of and pass upon such sales. Helio
employed such counsel, upon the direct advice of the Agency. Such
counsel continued to advise Helio throughout the 1960's and early
1970's, until the connection of such counsel to the CIA was discovered.
At all times while advising Helio, such counsel was either employed
by or in direct communication with, the CIA and at such times owed
primary allegiance to the CIA. Such relationships created a conflict
of interest which was manifested by advice to Helio, erroneous in fact
and law, and known to be so by such counsel.
In the early 1960's, when Helio began to encounter signifi-
cant marketing problems in its overseas markets, all as aforesaid,
Helio approached personnel of the CIA, including those responsible
for aircraft purchase and operations and the Agency's Chief Counsel,
both to complain and voice concern. On all such occasions, Helio was
told that the Agency was conducting no illegal activities, nor any
activities which would involve Helio, its name or products, and which
would cause Helio any of the difficulties of which it complained.
The Agency at all times denied any of the activities which have been
recited above, notwithstanding the fact that the persons who made
such denials were themselves personally engaged in such activities
and directly responsible for them.
CLAIM
A. Claim Under The Federal Tort
Claims Act
This is a claim by General Aircraft Corporation under the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, et seq, against the Central
Intelligence Agency, its agents and assigns for their wrongful inter-
ference in the prospective business of the company. Pursuant
GER
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Nine
28 U.S.C. § 1365, General Aircraft Corporation hereby notifies the
Central Intelligence Agency of this claim in the sum certain amount
of $25 million, by reason of such tortious interference in the com-
pany's prospective business during the period set forth in the above
Statement of Facts. 28 C.F.R. § 14.1 et seq. Notice is also hereby
given that the facts alleged have been secreted, sequestered and
intentionally withheld by the Agency, its agents and assigns, from
the knowledge of General Aircraft Corporation and its employees from
the dates when such activities are alleged to have occurred and until
the time of and conclusion of proceedings before the United States
Congress in or about June, 1976.
The undersigned is authorized to present this claim under
28 C.F.R. § 14.3(e) on behalf of General Aircraft Corporation.
Acts Of Interference
In support of its claim under the FTCA for tortious inter-
ference with the prospective business of Helio Aircraft Corporation,
claimant would show the following:
1. The Naircom Corporation was unable to establish
a market for its services in the Philippines in
1961, wholly as a result of the Agency's inter-
ference with Naircom's efforts to establish a
market in that area, as more fully set forth
above.
2. Helio Aircraft Corporation was unable to obtain
award of United States Government military con-
tracts for the purchase of its aircraft due to
the widespread and wrongful disparagement of
Helio aircraft by the Agency. Such disparage-
ment of Helio's product in particular resulted
in the loss of otherwise competitive procure-
ments from the Air Force and Navy, as more fully
set forth above.
3. Helio Aircraft Corporation suffered extensive
interference in the worldwide marketing of its
aircraft as a consequence of the active spon-
sorship of a Helio competitor, as more fully
set forth above.
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Ten
4. The Agency's use and appropriation of Helio's
corporate name and identity as a worldwide
"cover" caused Helio Aircraft Corporation to
suffer substantial stigmatizing and loss of
sales in otherwise favorable markets. This
stigmatizing and attendant loss of reputa-
tion and sales ultimately impaired Helio's
marketing of its aircraft, as more fully set
forth above.
Tortious Interference
Helio Aircraft maintains that its right to pursue business
without unjustified interference is a recognized property right pro-
tected under the FTCA and breached by the United States in this
instance when the Central Intelligence Agency and/or its proprietar-
ies induced third persons not to enter into business relations with
Helio Aircraft Corporation. It is firmly established that the Gov-
ernment is not exempted as a wrongful interferer in a corporation's
business.
Helio Aircraft Corporation submits that in the face of the
Agency's historical interference with the business of Helio, the
Agency's conduct meets the requisites of the tort of interference
with prospective business and, further, this action is not exempted
from liability under § 2680 of Title 28 of the FTCA, which provides,
in part:
(a) Any claim arising out of assault,
battery, false imprisonment, false arrest,
malicious prosecution, abuse of process,
libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit,
or interference with contract rights [is
exempt from liability under the FTCA]
(emphasis supplied).
Established case law recognizes that governmental disparagement of
a company's name, similar to the acts of the Central Intelligence
Agency in this instance, creates a cause of action not exempted from
the "interference with contract rights" exception of § 2680.
Helio Aircraft Corporation contends that the Central Intel-
ligence Agency's historical interference in its marketing of Helio
aircraft and the Agency's worldwide disparagement of its name and
reputation were tantamount to a "sanction" against Helio Aircraft
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Eleven
Corporation for Helio's failure to acquiesce to the Central Intelli-
gence Agency and/or its proprietaries' demands that Helio serve as a
"front" for Agency intelligence activities. The final product of
this sanction was the substantial impairment of Helio's assets and
its ability to maintain a viable business entity. The acts of the
Central Intelligence Agency taken against Helio Aircraft Corporation
have had a substantial adverse impact upon Helio's business relations
with other private and governmental parties.
The breadth of the scope of the Agency's interference with
the prospective business of Helio, as described above, was wide and
geographically dispersed. Against this factual posture that Helio
possessed a right to compete for business without interference from
the government or its proprietaries, Helio will show:
(1) Existence of a valid business relationship
or expectancy of the same prior to Agency
interference;
(2) Knowledge of this relationship or expectancy
on the part of the Central Intelligence Agency
or its proprietaries;
(3) An intentional interference by the Central
Intelligency Agency, in both prospective for-
eign and domestic procurements, inducing or
causing a breach or termination of the rela-
tionship or its expectancy; and
(4) Attendant damage to Helio Aircraft Corporation
whose relationship or expectancy has been sub-
stantially disrupted.
Situs Of Interference
Helio Aircraft Corporation submits that, aside from substan-
tial domestic interference with United States Government procurement
contracts, in the case of disparagement of Helio's foreign reputation
and interference and prospective foreign business, in each instance
the situs of the tortious interference was the central office of the
Central Intelligence Agency. While Helio Aircraft Corporation sub-
mits that the Agency's acts of interference originated from the
Agency's acts of interference originated from the Agency's central
office, Helio does not characterize such acts of interference as
LIGRATA GERALD : FORD
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Twelve
"discretionary action" exempt from liability under § 2680 of. Title 28
of the FTCA. Instead, it is the belief of Helio Aircraft Corporation
that the acts of tortious interference by the Central. Intelligence
Agency were committed at the operational or proprietary level.
Moreover, Helio Aircraft Corporation, in submitting this
claim under the FTCA, submits that its action under the Act did not
accrue until the full extent of damages resulting from the Agency's
tortious interference were discernible and not until it was aware of
the tortious acts, the injury and the casual relationship. In this
regard, Helio Aircraft Corporation was not fully aware, nor had any
reason to be aware, of the extent of the Agency's tortious acts and
attendant damage to its fiscal integrity, until advised of the same
through hearings and reports of recent date of the United States
Congress concerning the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.
B. Fifth Amendment Taking
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prevents a federal
agency from taking a person's private property for public use without
just compensation. Included within the definition of persons under
this provision of the Fifth Amendment are corporations.
General Aircraft Corporation contends that the Central Intel-
ligence Agency during the time set forth in the above Statement of
Facts brought about a taking of Its corporate property by a continuing
process of physical events. In support of its claim under the Fifth
Amendment, Helio will establish that the loss suffered as a consequence
of the Agency's acts in this instance are both compensable "property"
under the Fifth Amendment and, secondly, that the Agency's acts con-
stitute a compensable "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. More par-
ticularly, the acts of the Central Intelligence Agency constituting
a taking of Helio Aircraft's property under the Fifth Amendment include
the following:
1. Depriving Helio Aircraft Corporation of pro-
spective business opportunities, as more fully
set forth above.
2. Appropriation and use of Helio Aircraft's cor-
porate name throughout the world by the Central
Intelligence Agency as a "cover," as more fully
set forth above.
is
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Thirteen
3. Appropriation and use of Helio Aircraft's
proprietary and confidential data, draw-
ings, and trade secrets in the manufactur-
ing of Helio airplanes and aircraft parts
at an agency facility, as more fully set
forth above.
Where the government chooses to bring about a taking by a
continuing process of physical events, such as the continuous and
cumulative past facts of the Central Intelligence Agency against
Helio Aircraft Corporation, Helio Aircraft was not required to re-
sort piecemeal or premature litigation to ascertain the just com-
pensation of its appropriate property. Helio Aircraft Corporation
was not under an obligation to bring a taking action under the six-
year Statute of Limitations of § 2041(a) of Title 28 of the United
States Code until it knew that the corporation's name had been sub-
stantially diminished as a result of the Agency conduct.
Helio's Corporate Name
The name of a corporation has been recognized traditionally
as an invaluable asset of a company as a property right. Helio Air-
craft Corporation will establish that its company name was well estab-
lished and assumed the attribute of property prior to the adverse
disparagement and appropriation of its name by the Central Intelli-
gence Agency. It is that consolidated good will, reputation and
public identification which are entitled to protection from confusion
by the operation of the CIA and those under its control.
It is firmly established that a claim constitutes a compens-
able property right under the Fifth Amendment if that claim is a leg-
ally protected interest. As law and equity have historically protected
the corporate name, it follows that the corporate name and attendant
identity of Helio Aircraft Corporation is a compensable property
right under the Fifth Amendment.
Taking
By using the corporate name of Helio Aircraft Corporation
as a putative proprietary "cover" throughout the world, Helio Air-
craft Corporation assumed an identity and consequent stigma tanta-
mount to that of the Agency's own aviation proprietaries. Helio
Aircraft in many international communities was therefore associated
on many occasions with questionable activities of the Central Intel-
ligence Agency and/or its aviation proprietaries, ultimately GERAL adversely
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Fourteen
affecting Helio's worldwide reputation and ability to effectively
market its unique C/STOL aircraft. Before the Agency's appropria-
tion and misuse of Helio's corporate name, the company possessed a
valuable asset in the form of a viable and respected reputation as
a manufacturer of a unique aircraft. Following the use by the
Agency of Helio's name as an ostensible aviation proprietary, that
same asset was substantially diminished. In this posture, Helio
Aircraft contends that its property in the form of the company's
name, reputation and good will was taken by the Central Intelligence
Agency for public use. The total destruction of all value of Helio's
corporate name and reputation was attributable solely to the Central
Intelligence Agency's appropriation of that name for its own advan-
tage.
In summary, Helio Aircraft will establish:
(1) that its corporate name, reputation and good
will are compensable property interests under
the Fifth Amendment and that this property had
assumed a definitive value prior to the Central
Intelligence Agency's appropriation of Helio
Aircraft's corporate name; and
(2) that by using Helio's name, the Central Intel-
ligence Agency effected a "taking" under the
Fifth Amendment.
Appropriation of Helio Aircraft's Trade Secrets
Helio Aircraft Corporation has reason to believe that the
Central Intelligence Agency, through its proprietaries, appropriated
and used to its own advantage, trade secrets and other proprietary
data of Helio Aircraft Corporation in the manufacture of Helio air-
planes and Helio aircraft parts at the Agency's facility, as more
fully set forth in the above Statement of Facts. This appropriation
by the proprietaries of Helio Aircraft's trade secrets and proprie-
tary and confidential data constitutes a wrongful taking of property
under the Fifth Amendment, for which compensation must be made either
by the proprietaries, the Central Intelligence Agency, or the United
States.
a
FORD
GERALD
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Fifteen
Helio's Trade Secrets As "Property"
A trade secret is generally defined as any formula, pattern,
device or compilation of information which is used in one's business,
and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over com-
petitives who do not know or use it. A trade secret qualifies as
property and, as a property right, the trade secret is protected
against its appropriation or use without consent of the owner. That
this principle extends to prohibit wrongful appropriation by the
government of "technical data" is not novel.
As a species of property, the trade secrets and confidential
data appropriated by the Agency and its proprietaries are subject to
the compensation requirements of the Fifth Amendment. It is clear
that trade secret and confidential data are "property" under the
meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
In summary, Helio Aircraft Corporation will show that:
(1) Helio Aircraft Corporation has maintained
proprietary data, drawings and information
pertaining to the process of manufacturing
Helio aircraft and parts;
(2) This data was secret and not of public know-
ledge or of general knowledge in the trade
or business; and
(3) This data was appropriated by the Agency
and its proprietaries to its own benefit
and that this appropriation constituted a
"taking" under the Fifth Amendment.
Violation of the Federal Anti-Trust
Laws by CIA Proprietary Companies,
Their Officials and Agents, Indivi-
dually and in Combination
Proprietaries are business entities, wholly owned by the
Central Intelligence Agency, which either actually do business as
private firms, or appear to do business under commercial guise.
The proprietaries possess commercial business characteristics,
including requisite licenses, notwithstanding the fact that they
are under the complete control of the Agency. The CIA proprie . FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Sixteen
complex, in order to expand its own economic power, has destroyed
Helio's ability to compete in markets which Helio itself played
an essential role in creating and has seriously jeopardized the
continuing viability of General Aircraft Corporation.
With respect to Helio's antitrust claims, at least three
types of product markets can be identified. Each was affected by
acts of proprietaries and their co-conspirators:
1. Sale of C/STOL aircraft in foreign and domestic
markets;
2. Sale of transport and communication systems using
C/STOL aircraft (e.g., JAARS, Naircom)
3. Sale of C/STOL aircraft research and design.
The above listed products are sold for domestic military
applications and in international geographical markets, primarily
in Asia, Africa and South America, which require systems and equip-
ment based on the utilization of C/STOL aircraft. Helio has actively
engaged in marketing its products in all of the geographical markets
referred to.
Trade and Commerce
The CIA air proprietary complex has also been intimately
involved in these domestic and international markets. Indeed, it
has dominated the air transport industry for these areas. The acti-
vities complained of here, therefore, have had an obvious and sub-
stantial effect on commerce with foreign nations and on domestic
interstate commerce. Like other normal corporations, the proprietary
companies are domestically incorporated, are subject to the same
review as any corporate entity within their respective jurisdictions,
file applicable state and federal tax returns, and obtain necessary
licenses to conduct businesses. In addition, the air proprietaries
compete directly with privately owned corporations such as General
Aircraft. These companies, held together under the umbrella of the
Pacific Corporation, a Delaware (?) corporation, have invested sub-
stantially abroad and in United States banks, and have dealt and
continue to deal in common stocks, debentures and commercial paper
of various types. In the past twelve years the sale of stocks, for
example, has resulted in publicly disclosed profits in excess of
$500,000 accruing to the CIA.
is
FORD
GERALD
LISAARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Seventeen
During the period in question, the propriétaries bought
and sold substantial amounts of aircraft, carried domestic passen-
gers to and from foreign locations, and maintained an extensive
maintenance operation in Taiwan, among other areas, which required
parts and personnel from the domestic markets. It operated like
any other normal business. It used its profits for corporate and
company purposes, routinely dealt with the IRS, established normal
business relationships with affiliated and associated companies.
Unquestionably, CIA proprietary activities substantially
affected United States domestic commerce and commerce with foreign
nations. In particular, there can be no doubt that the CIA acti-
vities complained of here had a significant impact on commerce in
the products and in the geographical markets in which Helio parti-
cipated.
Violations Alleged
Conspiracy to Violate Sherman 1 and Sherman 2
From at least as early as 1955 until 1975, the CIA, through
its officials, together with other United States Government offi-
cials, officials of its operating and non-operating proprietary
corporations, and officials of other corporations, engaged in acti-
vities to restrain trade in the domestic and international markets
for C/STOL products and services in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and conspired to monopolize those markets and, in fact,
did monopolize the markets for those products in violation of Sec-
tion 2 of the Sherman Act.
The facts disclose that the members of this conspiracy
engaged in activities designed to foreclose Helio from further
participation in the domestic markets for its products, namely,
for United States Government contracts, among others. Although
Helio successfully developed these military markets during the
decade 1959 through 1969, late in the 1960's it was confronted
with unexplained sales resistance from government procurement offi-
cials. Helio aircraft had been evaluated extensively by military
procurement agencies during the 1950's and 1960's. It now appears
that such resistance was the direct and proximate result of activi-
ties of CIA proprietary companies, their employees and agents, which
activites included the "planting" of false and misleading informa-
tion with military agencies and the active promotion of competing
aircraft.
FORD
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Eighteen
The CIA, through its agents and co-conspirators, engaged
in acts to foreclose Helio from further participating in the inter-
national markets for its products, namely, individual foreign
markets in Asia, Africa and South America, among others. Misrep-
resentations and misuse of Helio's name by CIA operatives caused
total losses of sales in Thailand, the Philippines and Nepal, among
other places. Helio was foreclosed from participating in competi-
tion for the Thai Government's procurement of turbine-powered STOL
aircraft in 1972 and again in 1975 because of the CIA stigma
attached to its name. The CIA and its proprietaries, acting
through other United States Government officials, encouraged the
foreign governments to reject Helio aircraft and refuse to deal
with its personnel.
In furtherance of their conspiracy to foreclose Helio from
its own markets, the CIA and its co-conspirators also engaged in a
series of predatory practices and unfair methods of competition and
disparaged Helio's personnel and its products to its severe detri-
ment. The CIA and its proprietaries operated manufacturing facil-
ities and built essentially complete Helio air frames without a
license from Helio, so as to support clandestine air transport and
communications networks throughout Southeast Ais, and so as to earn
revenues which could be sequestered from government and public know-
ledge. Many of the components so manufactured failed in service.
As a result, many deficiency and failure reports accumulated in FAA
records concerning the Helio Courier. These manufacturing opera-
tions not only unfairly and defectively copied Helio's design but
used poor manufacturing techniques and inferior raw materials to
produce inferior products of shabby workmanship. As a direct re-
sult of these Helio performance reports, the military establishment
in Southeast Asia and elsewhere refused to purchase Helio products
and spread false information concerning their structural design
throughout the industry. The source of this deceptive, improper
and misinformative activity was the proprietary established by the
CIA. Numerous other false and derogatory reports, maintenance and
operating abuses originating in the proprietary complex not only
tarnished the reputation of Helio products, but also the competency
and integrity of its management.
As previously stated, abuse of Helio's name and good will
during covert Agency activities in foreign markets further contri-
buted to the inexplicable sales resistance and rejection by foreign
officials of Helio's products. Even now, Helio's attempts to cleanse
itself of the stigma of CIA association have been fruitless. As
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Nineteen
late as 1975, twelve years after the initial acts of the CIA and
its proprietaries, foreign government representatives refuse to
deal with General Aircraft, since the company is still associated
with clandestine activities, including the murder of public offi-
cials.
In engaging in the acts described above, the Agency, through
its officials and in combination with its co-conspirators, acted
maliciously for their own economic gain, and with the intent of
driving Helio from the markets which Helio had successfully devel-
oped. The effect of these violations has been to foreclose, mono-
polize, unreasonably restrain and lessen competition in the defined
markets in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
The facts demonstrate that the CIA, its proprietary organ-
izations, and other co-conspirators conspired to restrain trade
unreasonably in foreign and domestic commerce in violation of Sec-
tion 1 by, among other things:
1. engaging in a boycott of Helio's products;
2. allocating territorial markets for C/STOL-
related products and services;
3. disparaging Helio's officers and goods;
4. employing methods of doing business which
are patently unfair; and
5. in general, trying to drive Helio out of
business, or at the very least, out of the
markets in which Helio has a right to com-
pete.
Thus, one can reasonably conclude from the totality of facts
that the individuals and proprietary companies involved were engaged
in a pattern of activities which, even under the rule of reason
standard, amounts to an unreasonable restraint of trade in the de-
fined markets. The conspirators employed tactics which prevented
the development of free and open competition in those markets.
Indeed, the facts demonstrate that unless Helio was willing to turn
its marketing activities over to the CIA and its proprietaries, that
is, unless it was willing to join the conspiracy, it could not effec-
tively compete in these markets.
FORD
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Twenty
Not all restraints of trade, however, require a detailed
rule of reason analysis. The CIA and its co-conspirators have
engaged in at least two per se violations of Section 1. The facts
are replete with examples which demonstrate a conspiracy originat-
ing from actions of the CIA and its co-conspirators whereby poten-
tial government and private customers were successfully persuaded
not to deal with Helio. These same facts demonstrate that the CIA,
its proprietary organizations, and other co-conspirators conspired
to monopolize and did, in fact, monopolize at least the interna-
tional markets for Helio's products in violation of Section 2 of
the Sherman Act. As a direct result of the conspirators' activi-
ties, Helio was unable to market its products in the foreign and
domestic markets in which they either previously had been success-
ful or had the potential of becoming successful.
Attempts to Monopolize and Monopolization by the CIA,
Its Proprietaries and Their Employees and Agents
Beginning at least as early as 1961 and ending in 1975, the
CIA, through its proprietaries and their officials and agents attempted
individually to monopolize the markets -- both domestic and inter-
national -- for STOL products and services and, in fact, did monopol-
ize these markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The CIA and its proprietaries had created an air transport
complex of immense size with operations throughout the world. This
complex included one of the largest air transport operators in the
world.
The CIA and its proprietaries have exercised the power
inherent in this complex by eliminating Helio as a competitive fac-
tor in markets which the proprietaries dominated and, to some extent,
in domestic military markets and in other markets.
The CIA and its proprietaries abused their substantial econ-
omic power and their unique position to the severe detriment of
General Aircraft. They did so maliciously for their own economic
gain and with a specific intent to drive Helio from markets in which
it had a right to compete. They illegally sponsored and sold compet-
ing aircraft; repeatedly issued misleading reports concerning the
capability of such aircraft; and engaged in widespread discrediting
of Helio's products and its management.
"NO
GERA
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Twenty-One
The CIA and its proprietaries "embraced" each new opportun-
ity open to Helio by acting to exclude Helio fromdomestic, Asian and
African markets and to prevent Helio from taking advantage of new
domestic and foreign opportunities as they opened. Consequently,
its activities fall directly within the terms of Section 2 of the
Act.
The acts complained of herein demonstrate a consistent pat-
tern of willful violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Taken together and in perspective, it is obvious that the actions
of the CIA and its proprietaries establish a conspiracy to violate,
and clear violations of the law. The proprietary companies and
all individuals are subject to the sanctions of the Sherman Act.
General Aircraft Corporation herein claims its damages and the puni-
tive treble damages prescribed by the Act.
CONCLUSION
General Aircraft Corporation has herein stated a claim in
the amount of $25 million and for violation of the Sherman Act, $75
million, based on actions of the CIA, its proprietaries and their
employees and agents. The facts alleged will demonstrate that the
Agency, its proprietaries and individuals acted willfully and know-
ingly to misuse the company's name, misrepresent the company, and
otherwise appropriate the company's assets and good will to their
own benefit for purposes of carrying on acts illegal under United
States and foreign laws and to garner revenues for the individual
profit of those involved and to avoid the laws of the United States.
The facts alleged will show that the aircraft operations of Helio
were effectively destroyed by the acts of the CIA, its proprietaries,
their employees and agents, which were so manifestly illegal and
corrupt that when such acts were represented as those of Helio, Helio
was thereby effectively precluded from selling and marketing opera-
tions everywhere in the world.
Similarly, the facts as alleged above will show that the
CIA, its proprietaries and their employees and agents, by plan and
design, maligned and discredited Helio's products in the United
States and elsewhere in the world and actively engaged in the sell-
ing of competing products. All such acts were carried on for the
purpose of garnering revenues illegally for the individuals FORD and
organizations involved.
&
GERALD
LIBRARY
Mr. George Bush
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
September 30, 1976
Page Twenty-Two
For all of these acts, General Aircraft Corporation claims
damages as stated and further demands that the CIA, the State Depart-
ment, and all other departments and personnel of the United States
having the power and authority to do so, immediately assume respon-
sibility for the acts complained of, announcing thereby that General
Aircraft and its personnel were in no way involved in nor responsible
for such acts.
General Aircraft Corporation, through its counsel, requests
the opportunity to meet with you and to present further facts and
evidence in support of this claim. It is pointed out in this con-
nection that the facts alleged consist substantially of covert acts
by the Agency, its proprietaries and their employees and agents. As
such, a substantial portion of the evidence of such acts lies wholly
in the hands of the CIA. General Aircraft Corporation requests and
demands that such facts and evidence be disclosed reasonably and
promptly for purposes of settlement of this claim and without regard
to allegations of privilege which might be made in matters of general
public disclosure.
It is requested that this claim be promptly reviewed and
that voluntary disclosure of information and documents in connection
therewith be made without imposing upon the company the requirement
for disclosure through litigation.
Respectfully submitted,
Herbert L. Fenster
Attorney for
General Aircraft Corporation
HLF/gt
cc: Mr. Michael Duvall
Special Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
i
FORD
GENALD
LIBRARY
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
I called Tony Lapham on October 18.
He advises that this matter had come
up some years ago, and he does not
think there is any grounds for the
claim.
He sees no reason for our involvement.
P. Buchen
FORD
LIBRARY